Highway 17 Mileage Sign, first in CA?

[TJS23]

Hello everyone, I have been lurking on this forum for a while but I have decided to make this account to tell y'all about something very exciting i observed while driving on Highway 17 SB from Los Gatos to Santa Cruz last weekend. I can't find anywhere else this has been discussed, but I saw actual mileage signs that were similar to other states. It was only in Santa Clara county and counted down the last two miles before the SC county line and then it went away. (I did not go back NB) I am not super technical with the kinds of signs, but it had a green background, at the top was the 17 highway sign with south and then it said mile 2 and below had a while border with a .1-9 mileage as well. I have never seen these kinds of signs in CA and I'm wondering if anyone else has seen the sign and whether other highways might be getting mileage signs or if this is a one off because it's Highway 17. I'm sorry I couldn't take any pictures, I was driving alone and that stretch isn't the best place to hold your phone for a picture    

I've added a reference, it's still a little different from this but in this style:

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/nola.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/f/0b/f0b61b7d-9b9b-56dc-b8ff-e8b6e428c268/5d1629c3765d6.image.jpg?crop=739%2C739%2C0%2C142&resize=1200%2C1200&order=crop%2Cresize

[Max Rockatansky]

I've seen what you're describing on Facebook.  I believe you're correct that they are the first Mile Marker signs in California.  While the majority of the road community is probably thrilled they are there, I sure hope the Postmile Paddles didn't get torn down.  I prefer Postmiles given they offer more information, but I understand they aren't as useful as Mile Markers for the average driver. 

[myosh_tino]

Standard mile markers were installed for a time on CA-58 from Bakersfield to Boron and on California's entire length of US 6 but they were removed a few years ago.

[sparker]

I've seen what you're describing on Facebook.  I believe you're correct that they are the first Mile Marker signs in California.  While the majority of the road community is probably thrilled they are there, I sure hope the Postmile Paddles didn't get torn down.  I prefer Postmiles given they offer more information, but I understand they aren't as useful as Mile Markers for the average driver. 

Chances are that the paddles will remain; they delineate the location of minor "structures" such as culverts, drainage pipes, etc. and are vital for maintenance purposes.  IMO the mileposts are definitely overdue in CA (of course we were 40 or so years behind with exit numbering, so the state precedent for such things has been set!); knowing Caltrans, they're leaving it up to the districts to deploy such signage.  I'll be on the lookout for signage on other highways in D4, the site of this latest spotting -- but it should be noted that once over the top of the hill SB, CA 17 is in D5, which might not show any urgency about posting.  It took about 8-10 years to get exit numbers posted statewide; with COVID and other issues on Caltrans' plate, it might be an even longer slog for this venture.

Standard mile markers were installed for a time on CA-58 from Bakersfield to Boron and on California's entire length of US 6 but they were removed a few years.

AFAIK, the only ones remaining on CA 58 are along the Mojave Bypass; those were posted when the freeway opened in 2003. 

[myosh_tino]

Went out this morning and took the above picture of the new mile markers on CA-17.  The first one to appear southbound is at mile 3.4 and the signs are posted every 2/10ths of a mile ending with mile 0.0 at the Santa Clara/Santa Cruz county line.  Northbound is similarly signed starting at 0.0 at the county line, posted every 2/10ths of a mile with the last one being at mile 3.4.

I guess it can be said these mile markers are not being used properly as the mileage indicated is to/from the county line instead of the southern terminus of CA-17 in Santa Cruz.  I'm not entirely sure why Caltrans decided to install them.  Perhaps forum member and Caltrans employee jrouse can shed some light on the matter.

I, personally, find the installation a total waste of money.  The old black-on-white post mile paddles are more than sufficient for maintenance purposes and the new mile posts don't serve a navigational purpose because they're only providing the distance to the county line.

Standard mile markers were installed for a time on CA-58 from Bakersfield to Boron and on California's entire length of US 6 but they were removed a few years.

AFAIK, the only ones remaining on CA 58 are along the Mojave Bypass; those were posted when the freeway opened in 2003.

I can confirm they were removed with the rest of them on CA-58.

[sparker]

Went out this morning and took the above picture of the new mile markers on CA-17.  The first one to appear southbound is at mile 3.4 and the signs are posted every 2/10ths of a mile ending with mile 0.0 at the Santa Clara/Santa Cruz county line.  Northbound is similarly signed starting at 0.0 at the county line, posted every 2/10ths of a mile with the last one being at mile 3.4.

I guess it can be said these mile markers are not being used properly as the mileage indicated is to/from the county line instead of the southern terminus of CA-17 in Santa Cruz.  I'm not entirely sure why Caltrans decided to install them.  Perhaps forum member and Caltrans employee jrouse can shed some light on the matter.

I, personally, find the installation a total waste of money.  The old black-on-white post mile paddles are more than sufficient for maintenance purposes and the new mile posts don't serve a navigational purpose because they're only providing the distance to the county line.

Standard mile markers were installed for a time on CA-58 from Bakersfield to Boron and on California's entire length of US 6 but they were removed a few years.

AFAIK, the only ones remaining on CA 58 are along the Mojave Bypass; those were posted when the freeway opened in 2003.

I can confirm they were removed with the rest of them on CA-58.

I concur; if the new posts are only county-by-county, they're functionally pointless.  BTW, there were some CA 58 milepost "stragglers" at the east Mojave interchange as of late 2018.  But their presence would have also been pointless, given that the overall 58 mileage will change somewhat when the Westside Parkway is completed west of CA 99 and CA 58 shifted to that facility (and ostensibly all the way to I-5). 

[vdeane]

FYI, some states do in fact do milepoints by county instead of state for routes that aren't wholly limited access.  See: Kentucky, New York

[kkt]

I agree that those signs are a waste of money.  The size larger than the postpile markers might appeal to some drivers, but omitting the county makes them pretty much useless for giving directions to someplace.  Some drivers may keep track of what county they're in, but they are probably the ones who don't get into trouble in the first place.

[jeffe]

I think these signs were added to help drivers report the locations of accidents.  There's a paving project on Highway 17 right now to add high friction pavement to many of the curves and improve the lighting.  These signs were included in the plans for that project.

Right now the signs do a good job for reporting a location.  However, if District 5 decided to add them on the Santa Cruz side, then there would be duplicate numbers and it would create confusion.

Perhaps these are being done as a test project?  If it is successful then enhanced mile markers could be added to all of Highway 17 using statewide milage that matches the exit numbers.  Or maybe D4 and D5 just aren't talking to each other and there are no plans to add the same signs to Santa Cruz county.

[skluth]

The signs are good for all the safety reasons you'd need markers. Accidents. Breakdowns. Fires. Essentially any emergency along the highway. A marker giving location is more helpful to a 911 operator than "it's just up the hill a couple miles from the Starbucks." The signs are pretty worthless until they're needed.

[myosh_tino]

The signs are good for all the safety reasons you'd need markers. Accidents. Breakdowns. Fires. Essentially any emergency along the highway. A marker giving location is more helpful to a 911 operator than "it's just up the hill a couple miles from the Starbucks." The signs are pretty worthless until they're needed.

But that's what the existing black-on-white post mile paddles are meant to be used for.  This is why I question the installation of these new signs.

[sparker]

The signs are good for all the safety reasons you'd need markers. Accidents. Breakdowns. Fires. Essentially any emergency along the highway. A marker giving location is more helpful to a 911 operator than "it's just up the hill a couple miles from the Starbucks." The signs are pretty worthless until they're needed.

But that's what the existing black-on-white post mile paddles are meant to be used for.  This is why I question the installation of these new signs.

The signs are good for all the safety reasons you'd need markers. Accidents. Breakdowns. Fires. Essentially any emergency along the highway. A marker giving location is more helpful to a 911 operator than "it's just up the hill a couple miles from the Starbucks." The signs are pretty worthless until they're needed.

But that's what the existing black-on-white post mile paddles are meant to be used for.  This is why I question the installation of these new signs.

I think the argument here is that the green signs are more visible and familiar to the driving public who may not pay much (if any) attention to the present B&W paddles.  However, unless signage of the new format is given sufficient publicity so those drivers know what they're for -- identification of a particular location for purposes of incident reportage -- they'll just sit there like the current mileage ID.  It's too bad there's not a statewide total-route mileposting program -- but something like that's not likely to occupy a place on Caltrans' agenda anytime soon.

[skluth]

The signs are good for all the safety reasons you'd need markers. Accidents. Breakdowns. Fires. Essentially any emergency along the highway. A marker giving location is more helpful to a 911 operator than "it's just up the hill a couple miles from the Starbucks." The signs are pretty worthless until they're needed.

But that's what the existing black-on-white post mile paddles are meant to be used for.  This is why I question the installation of these new signs.

The signs are good for all the safety reasons you'd need markers. Accidents. Breakdowns. Fires. Essentially any emergency along the highway. A marker giving location is more helpful to a 911 operator than "it's just up the hill a couple miles from the Starbucks." The signs are pretty worthless until they're needed.

But that's what the existing black-on-white post mile paddles are meant to be used for.  This is why I question the installation of these new signs.

I think the argument here is that the green signs are more visible and familiar to the driving public who may not pay much (if any) attention to the present B&W paddles.  However, unless signage of the new format is given sufficient publicity so those drivers know what they're for -- identification of a particular location for purposes of incident reportage -- they'll just sit there like the current mileage ID.  It's too bad there's not a statewide total-route mileposting program -- but something like that's not likely to occupy a place on Caltrans' agenda anytime soon.

Thanks. Nice summation.

[heynow415]

The signs are good for all the safety reasons you'd need markers. Accidents. Breakdowns. Fires. Essentially any emergency along the highway. A marker giving location is more helpful to a 911 operator than "it's just up the hill a couple miles from the Starbucks." The signs are pretty worthless until they're needed.

But that's what the existing black-on-white post mile paddles are meant to be used for.  This is why I question the installation of these new signs.

The signs are good for all the safety reasons you'd need markers. Accidents. Breakdowns. Fires. Essentially any emergency along the highway. A marker giving location is more helpful to a 911 operator than "it's just up the hill a couple miles from the Starbucks." The signs are pretty worthless until they're needed.

But that's what the existing black-on-white post mile paddles are meant to be used for.  This is why I question the installation of these new signs.

I think the argument here is that the green signs are more visible and familiar to the driving public who may not pay much (if any) attention to the present B&W paddles.  However, unless signage of the new format is given sufficient publicity so those drivers know what they're for -- identification of a particular location for purposes of incident reportage -- they'll just sit there like the current mileage ID.  It's too bad there's not a statewide total-route mileposting program -- but something like that's not likely to occupy a place on Caltrans' agenda anytime soon.

As you noted earlier, b/w milepost paddles identify infrastructure locations (and most people can't really decode them anyway) so a county-based system is fine for those.  But for navigation and incident reporting purposes, the simpler green mileposts would seem to be better, and are a bit more intuitive to a typical road user.  I agree that these should be based on overall mileage of the route, similar to exit numbering, since most people pay no attention to county lines so duplicative numbering schemes when going from one county to the next would not be helpful.  OTOH, because CHP typically uses county mileposts to log incidents in SWITRS perhaps it's to not create confusion on that end??  If it is an experiment it'll be interesting to see what the end result is.  What a complex web we weave . . .

[myosh_tino]

Here is a concept milepost that I whipped up.  I started with the FHWA-spec Intermediate Enhanced Reference Location Sign and then added a small plaque at the bottom of the sign that contains the county code that is used on the current postmile signs.  An alteration that I'd be OK with would be to make the county code plaque black-on-white.

[kkt]

If we're all about making it understandable by the great unwashed, maybe use the full county name?

[myosh_tino]

If we're all about making it understandable by the great unwashed, maybe use the full county name?

Some of the county names are quite long here in California (e.g. San Bernardino, Contra Costa, Calaveras, etc) and the sign is only 18 inches wide so the print would be quite small.  The 911 operator can simply ask the person making the call for the 3 letter code on the bottom of the sign.

[jeffe]

Caltrans already has conversions between the statewide mile post and county post mile system as indicated here.

The easiest system for the general public to understand would be the statewide milage.  It seems like SWITRS and any Caltrans maintenance software should be upgraded to also accept statewide milage.  This would allow for the gradual conversion of the B&W paddles to statewide milage.

Having both systems would add overhead, but it would be placed on the employees of Caltrans and the CHP as opposed to the general public.  It would be easier to train them to deal with the situation than the general public. 

[roadfro]

Caltrans could've just taken a cue from NDOT and borrowed/updated their enhanced milepost spec, as discussed and depicted in this thread in 2014. Larger white "postmile" style reference marker with county code, and could've easily been adapted for decimal distance. That could make everybody happy!

[sparker]

Caltrans already has conversions between the statewide mile post and county post mile system as indicated here.

The easiest system for the general public to understand would be the statewide milage.  It seems like SWITRS and any Caltrans maintenance software should be upgraded to also accept statewide milage.  This would allow for the gradual conversion of the B&W paddles to statewide milage.

Having both systems would add overhead, but it would be placed on the employees of Caltrans and the CHP as opposed to the general public.  It would be easier to train them to deal with the situation than the general public. 

Caltrans could've just taken a cue from NDOT and borrowed/updated their enhanced milepost spec, as discussed and depicted in this thread in 2014. Larger white "postmile" style reference marker with county code, and could've easily been adapted for decimal distance. That could make everybody happy!

One of the issues here is a route (like CA 17) that enters two Caltrans districts; conversion to statewide/total mileage would require a full revamping of the maintenance logs for the district that is not at the S or W terminus of any route -- for instance, there would be no problem in Santa Cruz County/D5, since any signage there would reflect the fact that the originating terminus is also there, but once over the summit and into D4, their maintenance logs would have to be changed to reflect the fact that their indicators no longer place the zero point at the county line but now read an additional 15 miles (more or less).  Yeah, it technically could be done, but changing about 86 years of practice might not go over terribly well with either Caltrans management at either the district or state level -- and would almost certainly cause at least temporary consternation for their field personnel.  Don't see them altering their county-within-district approach anytime soon.       

[Scott5114]

I don't think anyone really cares if Caltrans changes their maintenance log to be statewide or not. You could have big green mileposts for the traveling public and little white ones for maintenance use.

If you do have to have the public mileposts reset at county lines, why not put the county code just above the number, so it's clear that it's meant to be part of the mileage? (MILE/SCL/2/.8). Then it doesn't really matter if someone realizes what the code stands for or that it even refers to a county. ("What milepost are you located at?" "Uh... 'SCL 2.8'.")

[myosh_tino]

I don't think anyone really cares if Caltrans changes their maintenance log to be statewide or not. You could have big green mileposts for the traveling public and little white ones for maintenance use.

If you do have to have the public mileposts reset at county lines, why not put the county code just above the number, so it's clear that it's meant to be part of the mileage? (MILE/SCL/2/.8). Then it doesn't really matter if someone realizes what the code stands for or that it even refers to a county. ("What milepost are you located at?" "Uh... 'SCL 2.8'.")

Let me take it a step further... I don't think most Californians really care about the big green mileposts.  We've gotten along quite nicely without them for decades.  I do think installing them every 2/10ths of a mile is a bit excessive though.

[Scott5114]

Well, yeah. Nobody cares about the mileposts in any other state either, until they're on the phone with 911 and the dispatcher asks where to send the highway patrol/fire truck/ambulance. (This is why the enhanced milepost design in the MUTCD also includes the highway marker and direction–so the motorist can just read off the whole milemarker to the dispatcher and they will know exactly where they are.)

The reason some states do them at a 0.2 mi distance (Missouri is another) is so that you normally have at least one milepost in view at all times.

[sparker]

Was up on 17 as far as Redwood Estates this morning.  Looks like the milepost signs are fully posted every 0.2 miles SB starting with milepost 2.8 -- but they get to 3.4 NB.  It appears that the signs are being installed as new guardrail (dual beam) or K-rail is also installed along side the highway; that construction has reached a bit farther NB than SB, which likely accounts for the discrepancy.  One thing I noticed on the section of the highway featuring more curvature (either side of "Big Moody Curve") is that the 0.2 mile distancing often means that one is regularly between mileposts -- so the incident reportage aspect of the signs may not be effective to anyone involved in an incident if it occurs out of sight of a green mileage post (although passing "good samaritans" might be able to give a location based  upon the next signpost).

But more interesting -- a gantry has been erected SB prior to the Redwood Estates RIRO turnoff; ostensibly that'll eventually be an advance BGS for the turnoff (the new guardrail has displaced the previous small green sign previously posted about 1/3 mile before the turnoff).  That's always been an easy one to miss, as it's on the back side of a sharp curve; this new overhead sign should help!